 Question 32 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Triatis on the Saviour. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Triatis on the Saviour, by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 32 of the Act of Principle in Christ's Conception in four articles. We shall now consider the Act of Principle in Christ's Conception, concerning which there are four points of inquiry. First, whether the Holy Ghost was the Act of Principle of Christ's Conception. Second, whether it can be said that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost. Third, whether it can be said that the Holy Ghost is Christ's Father according to the flesh. Fourth, whether the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's Conception. First article, whether the accomplishment of Christ's Conception should be attributed to the Holy Ghost. Objection one, it would seem that the accomplishment of Christ's Conception should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost. Because, as Augustine says in On the Trinity I, the works of the Trinity are indivisible, just as the essence of the Trinity is indivisible. But the accomplishment of Christ's Conception was the work of God. Therefore, it seems that it should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost any more than to the Father or to the Son. Objection two further, the Apostle says in Galatians 4-4, when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman. Which words Augustine expounds by saying in On the Trinity 4, sent insofar as made of a woman. But the sending of the Son is especially attributed to the Father, as stated in the first part, Question 43, Article 8. Therefore, his Conception also, by reason of which he was made of a woman, should be attributed principally to the Father. Objection three further, it is written in Proverbs 9-1, Wisdom hath built herself a house. Now Christ is himself the Wisdom of God, according to 1 Corinthians 1-24. Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God. And the house of this Wisdom is Christ's body, which is also called his temple according to John 2-21. But he spoke of the temple of his body. Therefore, it seems that the accomplishment of Christ's Conception should be attributed principally to the Son and not therefore to the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, it is written in Luke 1, verse 35, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. I answer that, the whole Trinity affected the Conception of Christ's body. Nevertheless, this is attributed to the Holy Ghost for three reasons. First, because this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, considered on the part of God. For the Holy Ghost is the love of Father and Son, as stated in the first part, question 37, article 1. Now, that the Son of God took to himself flesh from the Virgin's womb was due to the exceeding love of God, wherefore it is said in John 3-16, God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son. Secondly, this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation. On the part of the nature assumed. Because we are thus given to understand that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of person, not by reason of its merits, but through grace alone, which is attributed to the Holy Ghost according to 1 Corinthians 12-4. There are diversities of graces, but the same spirit. Wherefore Augustine says in his N. Caridian 40, the manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Ghost suggests to us the grace of God, whereby man, without any merits going before, in the very beginning of his nature when he began to exist, was joined to God the Word into so great unity of person that he himself should be the Son of God. Thirdly, because this is befitting the term of the Incarnation. For the term of the Incarnation was that that man who was conceived should be the Holy One and the Son of God. Now both of these are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For by him men are made to be sons of God according to Galatians 4-6. Because you are sons, God hath sent the spirit of his son into your hearts crying, Abba, Father. Again, he is the spirit of sanctification according to Romans 1-4. Therefore, just as other men are sanctified spiritually by the Holy Ghost, so as to be adopted sons of God, so was Christ conceived in sanctity by the Holy Ghost, so as to be the natural Son of God. Hence, according to a gloss on Romans 1-4, the words who was predestinated the Son of God in power are explained by what immediately follows. According to the spirit of sanctification, that is, through being conceived of the Holy Ghost, and the angel of the Annunciation himself after saying, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, draws the conclusion, therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Reply to Objection 1. The work of the conception is indeed common to the whole Trinity, yet in some way it is attributed to each of the persons. For to the Father is attributed authority in regard to the person of the Son, who by this conception took to himself human nature. The taking itself of human nature is attributed to the Son, but the formation of the body taken by the Son is attributed to the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost is the spirit of the Son, according to Galatians 4-6. God sent the spirit of his Son, for just as the power of the soul which is in the semen through the spirit enclosed therein, fashions the body in the generation of other men, so the power of God which is the Son himself, according to 1 Corinthians 124, Christ the power of God, through the Holy Ghost formed the body which he assumed. This is also shown by the words of the angel, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, as it were, in order to prepare and fashion the matter of Christ's body. And the power of the Most High, that is Christ, shall overshadow thee, as Christ to say, the incorporeal light of the Godhead shall in thee take the corporeal substance of human nature, for a shadow is formed by light and body, as Gregory says in his commentary on Job 18. The Most High is the Father whose power is the Son. Reply to Objection 2. The mission refers to the person assuming who is sent by the Father, but the conception refers to the body assumed, which is formed by the operation of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, though mission and conception are in the same subject, since they differ in our consideration of them, mission is attributed to the Father, but the accomplishment of the conception to the Holy Ghost, whereas the assumption of flesh is attributed to the Son. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says in his questions on the Old and New Testament, Question 52. This may be understood in two ways. For first, Christ's house is the church, which he built with his blood. Secondly, his body may be called his house just as it is called his temple, and what is done by the Holy Ghost is done by the Son of God, because theirs is one nature and one will. Second article. Whether it should be said that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, where the word of comes from the Latin preposition, day. Objection 1. You would seem that we should not say that Christ was conceived of, day, the Holy Ghost, because on Romans 11.36, for of him, ex ipso, and by him and in him are all things. The Gloss of Augustine says, Notice that he does not say of him, day ipso, but of him, ex ipso, for of him, ex ipso, are heaven and earth, since he made them, but not of him, day ipso, since they are not made of his substance. But the Holy Ghost did not form Christ's body of, day, his own substance. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of, day, the Holy Ghost. Objection 2 further. The active principle of, day, which something is conceived is as the seed and generation. But the Holy Ghost did not take the place of seed and Christ's conception. For Jerome says in his exposition on the Catholic faith, We do not say, as some wicked wretches hold, that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed, but we say that Christ's body was wrought, that is formed, by the power and might of the Creator. Therefore we should not say that Christ's body was conceived of, day, the Holy Ghost. Objection 3 further. No one thing is made of two, except they be in some way mingled. But Christ's body was formed of, day, the Virgin Mary. If therefore we say that Christ was conceived of, day, the Holy Ghost, it seems that a mingling took place of the Holy Ghost and was supplied by the Virgin, and this is clearly false. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of, day, the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, it is written in Matthew 1.18. Before they came together she was found with child of, day, the Holy Ghost. I answer that conception is not attributed to Christ's body alone, but also to Christ Himself by reason of His body. Now in the Holy Ghost we may observe a twofold habitude to Christ. For to the Son of God Himself who has said to have been conceived, He has the habitude of consubstantiality, while to His body He has the habitude of efficient cause. And this preposition of, day, signifies both habitudes. Thus we say that a certain man is of, day, his father. And therefore we can fittingly say that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost in such a way that the efficiency of the Holy Ghost be referred to the body assumed and the consubstantiality to the person assuming. Reply to Objection 1. Christ's body, through not being consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, cannot properly be said to be conceived of, day, the Holy Ghost, but rather from, ex, the Holy Ghost as Ambrose says in On the Holy Spirit 2. What is from someone is either from his substance or from his power. From his substance as the Son who is from the Father, from his power as all things are from God, just as Mary conceived from the Holy Ghost. Reply to Objection 2. It seems that on this point there is a difference of opinion between Jerome and certain other doctors, who assert that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed in this conception. For Chrysostom says in a homily on the Gospel of Matthew, When God's only begotten Son was about to enter into the Virgin, the Holy Ghost preceded him, that by the previous entrance of the Holy Ghost, Christ might be born unto sanctification according to his body, the Godhead entering instead of the seed. And Amesin says in On the True Faith 3, God's wisdom and power overshadowed her like unto a divine seed. But these expressions are easily explained, because Chrysostom and Amesin compare the Holy Ghost, or also the Son, who is the power of the Most High, to seed by reason of the active power therein, while Jerome denies that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed considered as a corporeal substance which is transformed in conception. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says in his N. Caridian 40, Christ is said to be conceived or born of the Holy Ghost in one sense, of the Virgin Mary in another. Of the Virgin Mary materially. Of the Holy Ghost efficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here. Third article. Whether the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's father in respect of his humanity. Objection 1. It would seem that the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's father in respect of his humanity, because according to the philosopher in On the Generation of Animals 1, the father is the active principle in generation, the mother supplies the matter. But the Blessed Virgin is called Christ's mother by reason of the matter which she supplied in his conception. Therefore it seems that the Holy Ghost can be called his father through being the active principle in his conception. Objection 2 further. As the minds of other holy men are fashioned by the Holy Ghost, so also was Christ's body fashioned by the Holy Ghost. But other holy men on account of the aforesaid fashioning are called the children of the whole Trinity and consequently of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ should be called the son of the Holy Ghost for as much as his body was fashioned by the Holy Ghost. Objection 3 further. God is called our father by reason of his having made us according to Deuteronomy 32.6. Is not he thy father that hath possessed thee and made thee and created thee? But the Holy Ghost made Christ's body as stated above in Articles 1 and 2. Therefore the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's father in respect of the body fashioned in him. On the contrary, Augustine says in his Enchiridion 40, Christ was born of the Holy Ghost not as a son and of the Virgin Mary as a son. I answer that the words fatherhood, motherhood, and sonship result from generation. Yet not from any generation, but from that of living things, especially animals. For we do not say that fire generated is the son of the fire generating it, except perhaps metaphorically. We speak thus only of animals in whom generation is more perfect. Nevertheless the word son is not applied to everything generated in animals, but only to that which is generated into likeness of the generator. Therefore, as Augustine says, again in his Enchiridion 39, we do not say that a hare which is generated in a man is his son, nor do we say that a man who is born is the son of the seed. For neither is the hare like the man, nor is the man born like the seed, but like the man who begot him. And if the likeness be perfect, the sonship is perfect, whether in God or in man. But if the likeness be imperfect, the sonship is imperfect. Thus in man there is a certain imperfect likeness to God, both as regards his being created to God's image, and as regards his being created unto the likeness of grace. Therefore in both ways man can be called his son, both because he is created to his image and because he is likened to him by grace. Now it must be observed that what is said in its perfect sense of a thing should not be said thereof in its imperfect sense. Thus because Socrates is said to be naturally a man in the proper sense of man, never is he called to be man in the sense in which the portrait of a man is called a man, although perhaps he may resemble another man. Now Christ is the Son of God in the perfect sense of sonship. Therefore although in his human nature he was created and justified, he ought not to be called the Son of God either in respect of his being created or of his being justified, but only in respect of his eternal generation by reason of which he is the Son of the Father alone. Therefore no wise should Christ be called the Son of the Holy Ghost nor even of the whole Trinity. Reply to Objection 1 Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary who supplied the matter of his conception unto likeness of species. For this reason he is called her Son. But as man he was conceived of the Holy Ghost as the active principle of his conception, but not unto likeness of species as a man is born of his Father. Therefore Christ is not called the Son of the Holy Ghost. Reply to Objection 2 Men who are fashioned spiritually by the Holy Ghost cannot be called Sons of God in the perfect sense of sonship. And therefore they are called Sons of God in respect of imperfect sonship, which is by reason of the likeness of grace which flows from the whole Trinity. But with Christ it is different, as stated above. The same reply avails for the Third Objection. Fourth Article Whether the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in the conception of Christ's body. Objection 1 It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in the conception of Christ's body. For Damascene says in On the True Faith 3 that the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin, purifying her, and bestowing on her the power to receive and to bring forth the Word of God. But she had from nature the passive power of generation like any other woman. Therefore he bestowed on her an active power of generation. And thus she cooperated actively in Christ's conception. Objection 2 Further All the powers of the vegetative soul are active as the commentator says in On the Soul 2. But the generative power in both man and woman belongs to the vegetative soul. Therefore both in man and woman it cooperates actively in the conception of the child. Objection 3 further In the conception of a child the woman supplies the matter from which the child's body is naturally formed. But nature is an intrinsic principle of movement. Therefore it seems that in the very matter supplied by the Blessed Virgin there was an active principle. On the contrary, the active principle in generation is called the Seminal Virtue. But as Augustine says in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 10 Christ's body was taken from the Virgin only as to corporeal matter by the divine power of conception and formation but not by any human Seminal Virtue. Therefore the Blessed Virgin did not cooperate actively in the conception of Christ's body. I answer that some say that the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's conception both by natural and by a supernatural power. By natural power because they hold that in all natural matter there is an active principle. Otherwise they believe that there would be no such thing as natural transformation. But in this they are deceived because a transformation is said to be natural by reason not only of an active but also of a passive intrinsic principle. For the philosopher says expressly in Physics 8 that in heavy and light things are passive and not an active principle of natural movement. Nor is it possible for matter to be active in its own formation since it is not in act. Nor again is it possible for anything to put itself in motion except it be divided into two parts one being the mover the other being moved which happens in animate things only as is proved in Physics 8. By a supernatural power because they say that the mother requires not only to supply the matter which is the menstrual blood but also the semen which being mingled with that of the male has an active power in generation. And since in the Blessed Virgin there was no resolution of semen by reason of her inviolate virginity they say that the Holy Ghost supernaturally bestowed on her an active power in the conception of Christ's body that others have by reason of the semen resolved but this cannot stand because since each thing is on account of its operation according to On the Heavens too nature would not for the purpose of the active generation distinguish the male and female sexes unless the action of the male were distinct from that of the female. Now in generation there are two distinct operations that of the agent and that of the patient where for it follows that the entire active operation is on the part of the male and the passive on the part of the female for this reason in plants where both forces are mingled there is no distinction of male and female since therefore the Blessed Virgin was not Christ's father but his mother it follows that it was not given to her to exercise an active power in his conception whether to cooperate actively so as to be his father or not to cooperate at all as some say once it would follow that this active power was bestowed on her to no purpose we must therefore say that in Christ's conception itself she did not cooperate actively but merely supplied the matter thereof nevertheless before the conception she cooperated actively in the preparation of the matter so that it should be apt for the conception reply to Objection 1 this conception had three privileges namely that it was without original sin that it was not that of a man only but of God and man and that it was a virginal conception and all three were affected by the Holy Ghost therefore Damascene says as to the first that the Holy Ghost came upon the virgin purifying her that is preserving her from conceiving with original sin as to the second he says and bestowing on her the power to receive that is to conceive the word of God as to the third he says and to give birth to him that is that she might while remaining a virgin bring him forth not actively but passively just as other mothers achieve this through the action of the male seed reply to Objection 2 the generative power of the female is imperfect compared to that of the male and therefore just as in the arts the inferior art gives a disposition to the matter to which the higher art gives the form as is stated in physics 2 so also the generative power of the female prepares the matter which is then fashioned by the active power of the male reply to Objection 3 in order for a transformation to be natural there is no need for an active principle in matter but only for a passive principle as stated above End of Question 32 read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC Question 33 of Summa Theologica Terzia Parz Triatis on the Saviour This is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Terzia Parz Triatis on the Saviour by Saint Thomas Aquinas translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province Question 33 of the mode and order of Christ's conception in 4 articles We have now to consider the mode and order of Christ's conception concerning which there are 4 points of inquiry First, whether Christ's body was formed in the first instant of its conception Second, whether it was animated in the first instant of its conception Third, whether it was assumed by the word in the first instant of its conception Fourth, whether this conception was natural or miraculous First article whether Christ's body was formed in the first instant of its conception Objection 1 It would seem that Christ's body was not formed in the first instant of its conception for it is written in John 2.20 6 and 40 years was this temple in building or which words Augustine comments as follows in On the Trinity 4 This number applies manifestly to the perfection of our Lord's body He says further in his 83 Questions, Question 56 It is not without reason that the temple, which was a type of his body, is said to have been 46 years in building so that as many years as it took to build the temple in so many days was our Lord's body perfected Therefore Christ's body was not perfectly formed in the first instant of its conception Objection 2 further There was need of local movement for the formation of Christ's body in order that the purest blood of the virgin's body might be brought where generation might aptly take place Now no body can be moved locally in an instant Since the time taken and movement is divided according to the division of the thing moved as is proved in Physics 6 Therefore Christ's body was not formed in an instant Objection 3 further Christ's body was formed of the purest blood of the virgin as stated above in Question 31 Article 5 But that matter could not be in the same instant both blood and flesh because thus matter would have been at the same time the subject of two forms Therefore the last instant in which it was blood was distinct from the first instant in which it was flesh But between any two instance there is an interval of time Therefore Christ's body was not formed in an instant but during a space of time Objection 4 further As the augmentative power requires a fixed time for its act so also does the generative power for both are natural powers belonging to the vegetative soul But Christ's body took a fixed time to grow like the bodies of other men for it is written in Luke 252 that he advanced in wisdom and in age Therefore it seems for the same reason that the formation of his body since that too belongs to the generative power was not instantaneous but took a fixed time like the bodies of other men On the contrary Gregory says in his commentary on Job 18 as soon as the angel announced it as soon as the spirit came down the word was in the womb within the womb the word was made flesh I answer that in the conception of Christ's body points may be considered First the local movement of the blood to the place of generation Secondly the formation of the body from that matter Thirdly the development whereby it was brought to perfection of quantity Of these the second is the conception itself The first is a preamble The third a result of the conception Now the first could not be instantaneous since this would be contrary to the very nature of the local movement of any body whatever the parts of which come into a place successively The third also requires a succession of time both because there is no increase without local movement and because increase is affected by the power of the soul already informing the body the operation of which power is subject to time is very formation in which conception principally consists was instantaneous for two reasons First because of the infinite power of the agent notably the Holy Ghost by whom Christ's body was formed as stated above in question 32 article 1 For the greater the power of an agent the more quickly can it dispose matter and consequently infinite power can dispose matter instantaneously to its due form Secondly on the part of the person of the son whose body was being formed for it was unbecoming that he should take to himself a body as yet unformed While if the conception had been going on for any time before the perfect formation of the body the whole conception could not be attributed to the Son of God since it is not attributed to him except by reason of the assumption of that body Therefore in the first instant in which the various parts of the matter were united together in the place of generation Christ's body was both perfectly formed and assumed and thus is the Son of God said to have been conceived nor could it be said otherwise Reply to Objection 1 Neither quotation from Augustine refers to formation alone of Christ's body but to its formation together with a fixed development up to the time of his birth Therefore in the aforesaid number are foreshadowed the number of months during which Christ was in the virgin's womb Reply to Objection 2 This local movement is not comprised within the conception itself but is a preamble there too. Reply to Objection 3 It is not possible to fix the last instant in which that matter was blood but it is possible to fix the last period of time which continued without any interval up to the first instant in which Christ's body was formed and this instant was the terminus of the time occupied by the local movement of the matter towards the place of generation Reply to Objection 4 Increase is caused by the augmentative power of that which is the subject of increase but the formation of the body is caused by the generative power not of that which is generated but of the Father generating from seed in which the formative power derived from the Father's soul had its operation but Christ's body was not formed by the seed of man as stated above in Question 31 Article 5, Third Reply but by the operation of the Holy Ghost therefore the formation thereof should be such as to be worthy of the Holy Ghost but the development of Christ's body was the effect of the augmentative power in Christ's soul and since this was of the same species as ours it behooved his body to develop in the same way as the bodies of other men so as to prove the reality of his human nature Second Article whether Christ's body was animated in the first instant of its conception Objection 1 it would seem that Christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception for Pope Leo says in his letter to Julian Christ's flesh was not of another nature than ours nor was the beginning of his animation different from that of other men but the soul is not infused into other men at the first instant of their conception therefore neither should Christ's soul should have been infused into his body in the first instant of its conception Objection 2 further the soul like any natural form requires determinate quantity in its matter but in the first instant of its conception Christ's body was not of the same quantity as the bodies of other men when they were animated otherwise if afterwards the development had been continuous either its birth would have occurred sooner or at the time of birth he would have been a bigger child than others the former alternative is contrary to what Augustine says and on the Trinity 4 where he proves that Christ was in the virgin's womb for the space of nine months while the latter is contrary to what Pope Leo says in his homily on the epiphany they found the child Jesus no wise differing from the generality of infants therefore Christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception Objection 3 further whenever there is before and after there must be several instance but according to the philosopher and on the generation of animals to in the generation of man there must needs be before and after for he is first of all a living thing and afterwards an animal and after that a man therefore the animation of Christ could not be affected in the first instant of his conception on the contrary Damacine says in on the true faith 3 at the very instant that there was flesh it was the flesh of the word of God it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul I answer that for the conception to be attributed to the very son of God as we confess in the creed when we say who was conceived by the Holy Ghost we must needs say that the body itself in being conceived was assumed by the word of God now it has been shown above in question 6 articles 1 and 2 that the word of God assumed the body by means of the soul and the soul by means of the spirit that is the intellect where for in the first instant of its conception Christ's body must needs have been animated by the rational soul reply to objection 1 the beginning of the infusion of the soul may be considered in two ways first in regard to the disposition of the body and thus the beginning of the infusion of the soul into Christ's body was the same as in other men's bodies for just as the soul is infused into another man's body as soon as it is formed so was it with Christ secondly this beginning may be considered merely in regard to time and thus because Christ's body was perfectly formed in a shorter space of time so after a shorter space of time it was animated reply to objection 2 the soul requires the quantity in the matter into which it is infused but this quantity allows of a certain latitude because it is not fixed to a certain amount now the quantity that a body has when the soul is first infused into it is in proportion to the perfect quantity to which it will attain by development that is to say men of greater stature have greater bodies at the time of first animation but Christ the perfect age was of becoming and middle stature in proportion to which was the quantity of his body at the time when other men's bodies are animated though it was less than theirs at the first instant of his conception nevertheless that quantity was not too small to safeguard the nature of an animated body since it would have sufficed for the animation of a small man's body reply to objection 3 what the philosopher says is true for the generation of other men because the body is successively formed and disposed for the soul whence first as being imperfectly disposed it receives an imperfect soul and afterwards when it is perfectly disposed it receives a perfect soul but Christ's body on account of the infinite power of the agent was perfectly disposed instantaneously wherefore at once and in the first instant it received a perfect form that is the rational soul third article whether Christ's flesh was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed objection one it would seem that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed because what is not cannot be assumed Christ's flesh began to exist when it was conceived therefore it seems that it was assumed by the word of God after it was conceived objection two further Christ's flesh was assumed by the word of God by means of the rational soul but it received the rational soul at the term of the conception therefore it was assumed at the term of the conception but at the term of the conception it was already conceived therefore it was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed objection three further in everything generated that which is imperfect precedes in time that which is perfect which is made clear by the philosopher in metaphysics nine but Christ's body is something generated therefore it did not attain this ultimate perfection which consisted in the union with the word of God at the first instant of its conception but first of all the flesh was conceived and afterwards assumed on the contrary Augustine says hold steadfastly and doubt not for a moment that Christ's flesh was not conceived in the virgin's womb before being assumed by the word as he says in on faith to Peter 18 I answer that as stated above we may properly say that God was made man but not that man was made God because God took to himself that which belongs to man and that which belongs to man did not pre-exist as subsisting in itself before being assumed by the word but if Christ's flesh had been conceived before being assumed by the word it would have at some time and hypothesis other than that of the word of God and this is against the very nature of the incarnation which we hold to consist in this that the word of God was united to human nature and to all its parts in the unity of hypothesis nor was it becoming that the word of God should by assuming human nature destroy a pre-existing hypothesis of human nature or of any part thereof it is consequently contrary to faith to assert that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed by the word of God reply to objection one if Christ's flesh had been formed or conceived not instantaneously but successively one of two things would follow either that what was assumed was not yet flesh so that the flesh was conceived before it was assumed but since we hold that the conception was affected instantaneously it follows that in that flesh the beginning and the completion of its conception were in the same instant so that as Augustine says we say that the very word of God was conceived in taking flesh and that his very flesh was conceived by the word taking flesh from the above reply to the second objection is clear for in the same moment that this flesh began to be conceived its conception and animation were completed reply to objection three the mystery of the incarnation is not to be looked upon as an ascent as it were of a man already existing and mounting up to the dignity of the union as the heretic fortiness maintained rather is it to be considered as a descent by reason of the perfect word of God taking unto himself the imperfection of our nature according to John 638 I came down from heaven fourth article whether Christ's conception was natural objection one it would seem that Christ's conception was natural for Christ is called the son of man by reason of his conception flesh but he is a true and natural son of man as also is he the true and natural son of God therefore his conception was natural objection two further no creature can be the cause of a miraculous effect but Christ's conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin who is a mere creature for we say that the virgin was a natural therefore it seems that his conception was not miraculous but natural objection three further for a transformation to be natural it is enough that the passive principle be natural as stated above in question 32 article 4 but in Christ's conception the passive principle on the part of his mother was natural as we have shown in question 32 article 4 therefore Christ's conception was natural on the contrary Dionysius says in his letter to the monk Caius Christ does in a superhuman way those things that pertain to man this is shown in the miraculous virginal conception I answer that as Ambrose says in On the Incarnation 6 in this mystery thou shalt find many things that are natural and many that are supernatural for if we consider in this conception anything connected with the matter thereof which was supplied by the mother it was in all such things natural but if we consider it on the part of the active power thus it was entirely miraculous and since judgment of a thing should be pronounced in respect of its form rather than of its matter and likewise in respect of its activity rather than of its passiveness therefore is it that Christ's conception should be described simply as miraculous and supernatural although in a certain respect it was natural replied to Objection 1 Christ is said to be a natural son of man by reason of his having a true human nature through which he is a son of man although he had it miraculously thus too the blind man to whom sight had been restored sees naturally by sight miraculously received replied to Objection 2 the conception is attributed to the blessed virgin not as the active principal thereof but because she supplied the matter and because the conception took place in her womb replied to Objection 3 a natural passive principal suffices for a transformation to be natural it is moved by its proper active principal in a natural and wanted way but this is not so in the case in point therefore this conception cannot be called simply natural questions 34 of the perfection of the child conceived in four articles we must now consider the perfection of the child conceived in four articles we must now consider the perfection of the child conceived and concerning this there are four points of inquiry first whether Christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of his conception second whether in that same instant he had the use of free will third whether in that same instant he could merit fourth whether in that same instant he was a perfect comprehensive first article whether Christ was sanctified in the first instant of his conception Objection 1 it would seem that Christ was not sanctified in the first instant of his conception for it is written in 1 Corinthians 1546 that was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural afterwards that which is spiritual but sanctification by grace is something spiritual therefore Christ received the grace of sanctification not at the very beginning of his conception but after a space of time Objection 2 further sanctification seems to be a cleansing from sin according to 1 Corinthians 6 1 and such some of you were namely sinners but you are washed but you are sanctified but sin was never in Christ therefore it was not becoming that he should be sanctified by grace Objection 3 further as by the word of God all things were made so from the word incarnate all men who are made holy receive holiness according to Hebrews 2 11 both he that sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one but the word of God by whom all things were made was not himself made as Augustine says in on the Trinity 1 therefore Christ by whom all are made holy was not himself made holy on the contrary it is written in Luke 1 verse 35 the holy which shall be born of the shall be called the Son of God and in John 10 verse 36 whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world I answer that as stated above in question 7 articles 9 10 and 12 the abundance of grace sanctifying Christ's soul flows from the very union of the word according to John 1 verse 14 we saw his glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth for it has been shown above in question 33 articles 2 and 3 that in the first instant of conception Christ's body was both animated and assumed by the word of God consequently in the first instant of his conception Christ had the fullness of grace sanctifying his body and his soul reply to objection 1 the order set down by the apostle in this passage refers to those who by advancing attain to the spiritual state but the mystery of the incarnation is considered as a condescension of the fullness of the Godhead into human nature rather than as the promotion of human nature already existing in the Godhead therefore in the man Christ there was perfection of spiritual life from the very beginning reply to objection 2 to be sanctified is to be made holy now something is made not only from its contrary but also from that which is opposite to it either by negation or by privation thus white is made either from black or white we indeed from being sinners are made holy so that our sanctification is a cleansing from sin whereas Christ as man was made holy because he was not always thus sanctified by grace yet he was not made holy from being a sinner because he never sinned but he was made holy from not holy as man not indeed by privation as though he were at some time a man and not holy but by negation that is when he was not man he had not human sanctity therefore at the same time he was made man and a holy man for this reason the angel said in luke 1 verse 35 the holy which shall be born of thee which words Gregory expounds as follows the commentary on Job 18 in order to show the distinction between his holiness and ours it is declared that he shall be born holy for we though we are made holy yet are not born holy because by the mere condition of a corruptible nature we are tied but he alone is truly born holy who was not conceived by the combining of carnal union reply to objection 3 the father creates things through the son and the whole trinity sanctifies men through the man christ but not in the same way for the word of god has the same power and operation as god the father hence the father does not work through the son as an instrument which is both mover and moved whereas the humanity of christ is as the instrument of the god head as stated above in question 7 article 1 third reply and in question 8 article 1 first reply therefore christ's humanity is both sanctified and sanctifier second article whether christ as man had the use of free will in the first instant of his conception objection 1 it would seem that christ as man had not the use of his free will in the first instant of his conception for a thing is before it acts or operates now the use of free will is an operation since therefore christ's soul began to exist in the first instant of his conception as was made clear above in question 33 article 2 it seems impossible that he should have use of free will in the first instant of his conception objection 2 further the use of free will consists in choice but choice presupposes the deliberation of counsel for the philosopher says in ethics 3 that choices the desire of what has been previously the object of deliberation therefore it seems impossible that christ should have the use of free will in the first instant of his conception objection 3 further the free will is a faculty of the will and reason as stated in the first part question 83 article 2 objection 2 consequently the use of free will is an act of the will and the reason or intellect but the act of the intellect presupposes an act of the senses and this cannot exist without proper disposition of the organs a condition which would seem impossible in the first instant of christ's conception therefore it seems that christ could not have the use of free will at the first instant of his conception on the contrary augustin says in his book on the trinity as soon as the word entered the womb while retaining the reality of his nature he was made flesh and a perfect man but a perfect man has the use of free will therefore christ christ had the use of free will in the first instant of his conception i answer that as stated above in article 1 spiritual perfection was becoming to the human nature which christ took which perfection he attained not by making progress but by receiving it from the very first now ultimate perfection does not consist in power or habit but in operation therefore it is said in on the soul to five that operation is a second act we must therefore say in the first instant of his conception christ had that operation of the soul which can be had in an instant and such is the operation of the will and intellect in which the use of free will consists for the operation of the intellect and will is sudden instantaneous much more indeed than corporeal vision in as much as to understand to will and to feel are not movements that may be described as acts of an imperfect being which attains perfection successively but are the acts of an already perfect being as is said in on the soul 328 we must therefore say that christ had the use of free will in the first instant of his conception reply to objection one existence precedes action by nature but not in time but at the same time the agent has perfect existence and begins to act unless it is hindered thus fire as soon as it is generated begins to give heat and light the action of heating however is not terminated in an instant but continues for a time whereas the action of giving light is perfected in an instant and such an operation is the use of free will as stated above reply to objection two as soon as council or deliberation is ended there may be choice but those who need the deliberation of council as soon as this comes to an end are certain of what ought to be chosen and consequently they choose at once from this it is clear that the deliberation of council does not of necessity precede choice save for the purpose of inquiring into what is uncertain but christ in the first instant of his conception had the fullness of sanctifying grace and in like manner the fullness of known truth according to john one fourteen full of grace and truth wherefore as being possessed of certainty about all things he could choose at once in an instant reply to objection three christ's intellect in regard to his infused knowledge could understand without turning to phantasms as stated above in question eleven article two consequently his intellect and will could act without any action of the senses nevertheless it was possible for him in the first instant of his conception to have an operation of the senses especially as to the sense of touch which the infant can exercise in the womb even before it has received the rational soul as is said in on the generation of animals to three and four wherefore since christ had the rational soul in the first instant of his conception through his body being already fashioned and endowed with sensible organs much more was it possible for him to exercise the sense of touch in that same instant third article whether christ could merit in the first instant of his conception objection one it would seem that christ could not merit in the first instant of his conception for the free will bears the same relation to merit as to demerit but the devil could not sin in the first instant of his creation as was shown in the first part question sixty three article five therefore neither could christ's soul merit in the first instant of its creation that is in the first instant of christ's conception objection two further that which man has in the first instant of his conception seems to be natural to him for it is in this that his natural generation is terminated but we do not merit by what is natural to us as is clear from what has been said in the second part in the past premise a kundek question one hundred and nine article five and in question one hundred and fourteen article two therefore it seems that the use of free will which christ as man had in the first instant of his conception was not meritorious objection three further that which a man has once merited he makes in a way his own consequently it seems that he cannot merit the same thing again for no one merits what is already his if therefore christ merited in the first instant of his conception it follows that afterwards he merited nothing but this is evidently untrue therefore christ did not merit in the first instant of his conception on the contrary augustin says increase of merit was absolutely impossible to the soul of christ but increase of merit would have been possible had he not merited in the first instant of his conception therefore christ merited in the first instant of his conception i answer that as stated above in article one christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of his conception now sanctification is two fold that of adults who are sanctified in consideration of their own act and that of infants who are sanctified in consideration of not their own act of faith but that of their parents or of the church the former sanctification is more perfect than the latter just as act is more perfect than habit and that which is by itself than that which is by another as Aristotle states in the physics 8 since therefore the sanctification of christ was most perfect because he was so sanctified that he might sanctify others consequently he was sanctified by reason of his own movement of the free will towards god which movement indeed of the free will is meritorious consequently christ did merit in the first instant of his conception reply to objection one free will does not bear the same relation to good as to evil for to good it is related of itself and naturally whereas to evil it is related as to a defect and beside nature now as the philosopher says in on the heavens 2 18 that which is beside nature is subsequent to that which is according to nature because that which is beside nature is an exception to nature therefore the free will of a creature can be moved to good meritoriously in the first instant of its creation but not to evil sinfully provided however its nature be unimpaired reply to objection 2 that which man has at the first moment of his creation in the ordinary course of nature is natural to him but nothing hinders a creature from receiving from god a gift of grace at the very beginning of its creation in this way did Christ's soul in the first instant of his creation receive grace by which it could merit and for this reason is that grace by way of a certain likeness said to be natural to this man as explained by Augustine in his N. Caridian 40 reply to objection 3 nothing prevents the same thing belonging to someone from several causes and thus it is that Christ was able by subsequent actions and sufferings to merit the glory of immortality which he also merited in the first instant of his conception not indeed so that it became there by more due to him than before but so that it was due to him from more causes than before fourth article whether Christ was a perfect comprehensor in the first instant of his conception objection 1 it would seem that Christ was not a perfect comprehensor in the first instant of his conception for merit precedes reward as fault precedes punishment but Christ merited in the first instant of his conception is stated above in article 3 since therefore the state of comprehension is the principle reward it seems that Christ was not a comprehensor in the first instant of his conception objection 2 further our lord said in Luke 24 verse 26 ought not Christ to have suffered these things and so to enter into his glory but glory belongs to the state of comprehension therefore Christ was not in the state of comprehension in the first instant of his conception when as yet he had not suffered objection 3 further what befits neither man nor angel seems proper to God and therefore it is not becoming to Christ as man but to be always in the state of Beatitude befits neither man nor angel for if they had been created in Beatitude they would not have sinned afterwards therefore Christ as man was not in the state of Beatitude in the first instant of his conception on the contrary it is written in Psalm 64 verse 5 blessed is he whom thou has chosen and taken to thee which words according to the gloss refer to Christ's human nature which was taken by the word of God unto the unity of person but human nature was taken by the word of God in the first instant of his conception therefore in the first instant of his conception Christ as man was in the state of Beatitude which is to be a comprehensor I answer that as appears from what has been said above in article 3 it was unbecoming that in his conception Christ should receive merely habitual grace without the act now he received grace according to John 3 34 not by measure as stated above in question 7 article 11 but the grace of the wayfarer being short of that of the comprehensor is in less measure than that of the comprehensor therefore it is manifest that in the first instant of his conception Christ received not only as much grace as comprehensors have but also greater than that which they all have and because that grace was not without its act it follows that he was a comprehensor in act seeing God in his essence more clearly than other creatures reply to objection 1 as stated above in question 19 article 3 Christ did not merit the glory of the soul in respect of which he is said to have been a comprehensor but the glory of the body to which he came through his passion where for the reply to the second objection is clear reply to objection 3 since Christ was both God and man he had even in his humanity something more than other creatures namely that he was in the state of beatitude from the very beginning end of question 34 read by Michael Shane Greg Lambert L.C.